Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

I would like to take my views about the subject of the thread:

Be careful: Imaging vs. Compression

… a little further into radicalism, or closer to the naked truth. It might be (and most likely) will not agreed or in some cases not understood, still it is my conviction.

People who read my site know that I am a vocal and consistent opponent of “soundstage”. Imaging is a different category but I would like to keep Imaging out of scope of this conversation. The recent years some audio writing monkeys began to make fashionable to brag in their audio publications that they got less stupid and that “soundstage” is not their priority anymore. The sad irony is that it is not really true – they use to sell to fool-subscribers the notion of “soundstage” for years and now they just trying to use a new marketing tool: do not sell “soundstage”. Speaking personally with some of those people I realized that behind the empty words the new soundstage-haters have nothing, not to mention that understanding of the soundstage’s benefits AFTER soundstage rejection is too advanced subject for them to absorb.

Anyhow, I intend to rule out all existing explanations of Soundstage as dimensionality of audio recording and the explanations of it as a bi-product of stereophonic phase processing. I nominate a new cause of soundstage – a compression. I will not explain it – you do it, as well it is up to you to think further about the relation between soundstage  and compression. Still, here is a tip for further thinking: Imaging compete against compression but soundstage is benefited by compression…

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site